The Politically Incorrect Show - 13/10/2000
[Music - Die Fledermaus]
Good afternoon, Kaya Oraaa & welcome to the Politically Incorrect Show on the free speech network, Radio Pacific, for Friday October 13, proudly sponsored by Neanderton Nicotine Ltd., the show that says bugger the politicians & bureaucrats & all the other bossyboot busybodies who try to run our lives with our money; that stands tall for free enterprise, achievement, profit, & excellence, against the state-worshippers in our midst; that stands above all for the most sacred thing in the universe, the liberty of the human individual.
[Music up, music down!]
One of the frustrating things about upholding a principle consistently is that it's so unfashionable. In the political realm, politicians & voters alike will quite happily uphold policy Y based on principle X, & then go on to propose policy Z based on principle anti-X, blithely unaware, it seems, of the contradiction. Thus, for instance, many advocates of a free market in economics, with its underlying principle that human interaction should be voluntary & consensual, also believe in the criminalisation of homosexuality - assuming that it's acceptable & desirable to outlaw certain voluntary, consensual activities. Such people we call "conservatives." So-called "liberals" usually display the same contradiction in reverse. Our current government, for instance, is proposing to legalise prostitution while clamping down on just about everything else. None of this is surprising in an anti-conceptual era, & I've long since given up on expecting consistency from anyone in public life. Or private, for that matter! So it was with the greatest astonishment & pleasure that I read the following posting passed on to me from an internet chat-group, written by one James Gribble, who is just seventeen years old. I hope every politician & every voter listens to it & takes it to heart:
"An Attack on Modern-day Politics.
'He that always gives way to others will end in having no principles of his own.' - Aesop
"Politicians from all sides of the political spectrum lack one very important idea - principles. Someone's principles are the most important aspect of their political beliefs. They determine all your policies and explain why you think such a policy is right or wrong. Yet no modern-day politicians have principles and neither are they interested in having any. Some politicians are not stupid, and do understand that principles and philosophy are necessary. But they do not have any! Why is this?
"The reason for politicians not having any principles is an outcome of democracy. Democracy lies on what Aristotle called 'mob rule' or rule of the majority. This means the majority vote on who is to represent them in parliament. The problem with this is that the majority do not have a philosophy nor do they have any sort of principles. The average 'joe' does not care what is right and what is wrong he only cares about what directly affects him. So he does not expect the politicians that are representing himself to have principles either. Politicians realise this and notice that the only way they can get into parliament is if they represent the majority. They cannot get into parliament easily if they stand up for a philosophy. The simple man ('joe') cannot understand their philosophy as it requires in-depth research and understanding. So the politicians must represent the majority but at the same time try to follow their political ideology. We end up with a system that suffocates principles and completely obliterates philosophy.
"Politicians compromise their principles so they can get into power. Almost all politicians do this and that is why democracy has no hope for the future. By comprising their principles they are following the average 'joe', who certainly does not have the answers. Compromising principles, or in most cases having none leads to many pointless debates. So we get pathetic arguments like focusing on how much welfare should be spent rather than whether compulsorily taxing people to pay for welfare is right. In a system like this we have no chance of ever finding the right code of morals used to govern society and no chance of having a stable government. Stable governments are impossible when you do not have principles (a set of values which stays the same and guides all other polices). Notice how Labour of 1984 is far different to the current New Zealand Labour Government.
"The politicians condemned themselves by compromising their principles and philosophy as well. Almost no politicians have a philosophy, but many claim to have principles or values but constantly push those aside for the prospects of more power. But this does the public or them no good. If they compromise their principles when they argue on an issue, then their solution will never come to practise. That does them no good in the long run. In order to make long lasting change for the betterment of men you must have a set of philosophical principles. A politician must stand by them and never compromise them, or else he will be sanctioning something he believes to be evil. He will be a man of principle a man who believes there is a long term future for his people. He will defend principle because he knows principle will defend him."
Now there are a couple of things in here that I might quibble with, but overall I find it an extraordinary & refreshing essay from a seventeen-year-old. If youngsters such as James Gribble can go through the state education system & endure its wholesale onslaught against conceptual integration, yet still produce something like this, then there is hope after all. I hope to add this young man to my stable of Free Radical writers in the near future. Right now, I'd like to bestow upon him the Free Radical Award.
If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe?